Transcription

1 GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate January 2008 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREE BENEFITS Current Funded Status of Pension and Health Benefits GAO

2 January 2008 Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Highlights of GAO , a report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREE BENEFITS Current Funded Status of Pension and Health Benefits Why GAO Did This Study Pension and other retiree benefits for state and local government employees represent liabilities for state and local governments and ultimately a burden for state and local taxpayers. Since 1986, accounting standards have required state and local governments to report their unfunded pension liabilities. Recently, however, standards changed and now call for governments also to report retiree health liabilities. The extent of these liabilities nationwide is not yet known, but some predict they will be very large, possibly exceeding a trillion dollars in present value terms. The federal government has an interest in assuring that all Americans have a secure retirement, as reflected in the federal tax deferral for contributions to both public and private pension plans. Consequently, the GAO was asked to examine: 1) the key measures of the funded status of retiree benefits and 2) the current funded status of retiree benefits. GAO analyzed data on public pensions, reviewed current literature, and interviewed a range of experts on public retiree benefits, actuarial science, and accounting. What GAO Found Three key measures help to understand different aspects of the funded status of state and local government pension and other retiree benefits. First, governments annual contributions indicate the extent to which governments are keeping up with the benefits as they are accumulating. Second, the funded ratio indicates the percentage of actuarially accrued benefit liabilities covered by the actuarial value of assets. Third, unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities indicate the excess, if any, of liabilities over assets in dollars. Governments have been reporting these three measures for pensions for years, but new accounting standards will also require governments to report the same for retiree health benefits. Because a variety of methods and actuarial assumptions are used to calculate the funded status, different plans cannot be easily compared. Currently, most state and local government pension plans have enough invested resources set aside to keep up with the benefits they are scheduled to pay over the next several decades, but governments offering retiree health benefits generally have large unfunded liabilities. Many experts consider a funded ratio of about 80 percent or better to be sound for government pensions. We found that 58 percent of 65 large pension plans were funded to that level in 2006, a decrease since Low funded ratios would eventually require the government employer to improve funding, for example, by reducing benefits or by increasing contributions. However, pension benefits are generally not at risk in the near term because current assets and new contributions may be sufficient to pay benefits for several years. Still, many governments have often contributed less than the amount needed to improve or maintain funded ratios. Low contributions raise concerns about the future funded status. For retiree health benefits, studies estimate that the total unfunded actuarial accrued liability for state and local governments lies between $600 billion and $1.6 trillion in present value terms. The unfunded liabilities are large because governments typically have not set aside any funds for the future payment of retiree health benefits as they have for pensions. Percentage of State and Local Pension Plans with Funded Ratios above or below 80 Percent Percentage of plans What GAO Recommends GAO is not making recommendations in this report. Experts on public benefits funding provided technical clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate Fiscal year To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on GAO For more information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at (202) or Funded ratio 80 percent or more Funded ratio less than 80 percent Source: GAO analysis of PFS, PENDAT data. United States Government Accountability Office

3 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Key Measures of the Funded Status of Retiree Benefits Are Contributions, Funded Ratios, and Unfunded Liabilities of Individual Plans over Time 8 Most Public Pensions Have Assets to Pay Benefits over Several Decades, Though Contributions Vary, While Unfunded Liabilities for Retiree Health Are Significant 14 Concluding Observations 22 Agency Comments 23 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24 Related GAO Products 27 Tables Table 1. Effective Dates for GASB Statements 43 and 45, Requiring Public Employers to Estimate Health Care Liabilities 7 Table 2: Normal Cost Calculations for Three Most Commonly Used Actuarial Cost Methods 12 Figures Figure 1. Relationship among the Key Measures of the Funded Status 11 Figure 2: Division of the Current Value of Future Benefits among Time Periods 12 Figure 3: Percentage of State and Local Government Pension Plans with Funded Ratios above or below 80 Percent, by Fiscal Year 16 Figure 4: Percentage of State and Local Government Pension Plans for which Governments Contributed More or Less Than 100 Percent of the ARC, by Fiscal Year 18 Page i GAO State and Local Retiree Funding

4 Abbreviations ARC AAL ERISA GASB NASRA PFS PBGC PPCC annual required contribution actuarial accrued liability Employee Retirement Income Security Act Governmental Accounting Standards Board National Association of State Retirement Administrators Public Fund Survey Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Public Pension Coordinating Council This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii GAO State and Local Retiree Funding

5 United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC January 29, 2008 The Honorable Max Baucus Chairman The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member Committee on Finance United States Senate Nearly 20 million employees and 7 million retirees and dependents of state and local governments including school teachers, police, firefighters, and other public servants are promised pensions, and many are promised retiree health benefits. Many of these benefits are guaranteed by state law or contract and represent actuarial accrued liabilities 1 for state and local governments and ultimately the taxpayer. Typically, pension benefits are paid from a fund made up of assets from employers and employees annual contributions and the investment earnings from those contributions. Such a fund has an unfunded liability when the actuarial value of assets is less than actuarial accrued liabilities. Accounting standards have called for state and local governments to report their unfunded pension liabilities since But accounting standards have only recently been established that call for reporting the size of unfunded retiree health liabilities. While few state and local governments have as yet officially reported these unfunded liabilities, some studies have estimated that they may exceed $1 trillion dollars nationwide in present value terms. Such estimates raise concerns about the fiscal challenges that state and local governments will face in the coming decades. As discussion of the unfunded liabilities of state and local governments has increased, questions have been raised by some about how to understand these amounts. State and local retiree benefits are not subject, for the most part, to the federal funding requirements that apply to pensions sponsored by private employers. Nevertheless, the federal government has an interest in assuring that all Americans have a secure retirement, as reflected in the federal tax deferral for contributions to both public and private pension plans. Given the concerns about unfunded liabilities for state and local retiree benefits, we are reporting 1 Actuarial accrued liabilities, referred to in this report as liabilities, are the portion of the present value of future benefits that is attributable to employee services in past periods, under the actuarial cost method utilized. Page 1

6 on: 1) the key measures of the funded status of retiree benefits and 2) the current funded status of retiree benefits. To address these objectives, we reviewed literature and interviewed a range of experts and stakeholders, including national associations of state and local officials, labor unions, bond raters, and actuarial and accounting professionals, among others. To describe the funded status of state and local pension plans, we analyzed self-reported data from the Public Fund Survey (PFS) as well as surveys by the Public Pension Coordinating Council (PPCC). 2 This report represents one of two recent reports on state and local government retiree benefits. The other report, State and Local Government Retiree Benefits: Current Status of Benefit Structures, Protections, and Fiscal Outlook for Funding Future Costs (GAO ), provides a descriptive overview of such benefits. We conducted our work in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Connecticut from July 2006 to January 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Results in Brief Three key measures help to understand different aspects of the funded status of state and local government retiree benefits. First, governments annual contributions indicate the extent to which they are keeping up with the value of benefits as they are accumulating. Second, the funded ratio indicates the percentage of a plan s liabilities covered by its assets. Third, unfunded liabilities indicate the excess, if any, of liabilities over assets in dollars. Low funded ratios correspond to high unfunded liabilities and require larger future contributions to pay benefits, which may create future budget problems and means future generations will bear more of the cost. Governments have been reporting these funded status measures for pensions for years. However, new accounting rules will also call on governments to report the funded status of retiree health benefits in a similar manner, even though many have not made any contributions to build assets to cover liabilities. These funded status measures should be reviewed using several years of data because in some years fiscal pressures may encourage governments to choose other budget priorities. Also, the value of assets can fluctuate from year to year with changes in investment 2 The PFS is sponsored by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the National Council on Teacher Retirement. In 2005, the PFS data we used represented 58 percent of total assets invested in public pension plans nationwide, and 72 percent of total members. PFS data covered years beginning with PPCC data covered years 1994, 1996, and Page 2

7 returns, so examining a single year of funding data can be misleading. Because governments use a variety of methods and actuarial assumptions to calculate the funded status, different plans cannot be easily compared. Currently, most state and local government pension plans have enough invested resources set aside to pay for the benefits they are scheduled to pay over the next several decades, but governments that offer retiree health benefits generally have large unfunded liabilities. Many experts consider a funded ratio of about 80 percent or better to be sound for state and local government pensions. According to the self-reported PFS data, 58 percent of 65 large public pension plans were funded to that level in 2006, a decrease since 2000 when about 90 percent of plans were so funded. While most plans funding may be sound, a few plans have persistently reported low funded ratios. Low funded ratios will eventually require the government employer to improve funding, for example, by reducing benefits or by increasing contributions. Increasing contributions may require revenue increases or reductions in non-benefit spending. However, even for many plans with lower funded ratios, benefits are generally not at risk in the near term because current assets and new contributions may be sufficient to pay benefits for several years. Still, many governments have often contributed less than the amount needed to improve or maintain funded ratios. Low contributions raise concerns about the future funded status, and may shift costs to future generations. For retiree health benefits, various studies estimate that the total unfunded liability for state and local governments lies between $600 billion and $1.6 trillion although the estimates are based on samples of governments that are not necessarily representative. The unfunded liabilities are large because state and local governments typically have not set aside any funds for future retiree health benefits in the way they have for pensions. Instead, their practice has been to pay for the retiree health benefits due in a given year from the revenues for that year, like many private employers. This financing approach can leave little flexibility for governments, and therefore may stress future budgets. As a result, as health care costs increase, governments may face even greater pressure to reduce benefits or increase revenues. However, our analysis shows that the annual amount paid for retiree health benefits is currently low compared to pensions, but growth of health costs will be faster and less predictable. The Internal Revenue Service and experts in the field provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Page 3

8 Background State and local governments will likely face daunting fiscal challenges in the next few years, driven in large part by the growth in health-related costs. 3 Medicaid and health insurance for state and local employees and retirees make up a large share of such costs. In contrast, our analysis shows that state and local governments on average would need to increase pension contribution rates to 9.3 percent of salaries less than.5 percent more than the 9.0 percent contribution rate in 2006 to achieve healthy funding on an ongoing basis. With few exceptions, defined benefit pension plans still provide the primary pension benefit for most state and local workers. About 90 percent of full-time state and local employees participated in defined benefit pension plans as of A defined benefit plan determines benefit amounts by a formula that is generally based on such factors as years of employment, age at retirement, and salary level. 5 A few states offer defined contribution or other types of plans as the primary retirement instrument. 6 In fiscal year 2006, state and local government pension systems covered 18.4 million members and made periodic payments to 7.3 million beneficiaries, paying out $151.7 billion in benefits. Many state and local governments also offer retirees health care benefits in addition to Medicare benefits provided by the federal government the costs of which have been growing rapidly. One study estimated that state and local governments paid $20.7 billion in fiscal year 2004 for retiree health benefits. For retirees who are under age 65 (that is, not yet Medicare-eligible), many state and local employers provide access to group health coverage with varying levels of employer contributions. As of 2006, 14 states did not contribute to the premium for this coverage, while 3 GAO, State and Local Governments: Persistent Fiscal Challenges Will Likely Emerge within the Next Decade, GAO SP (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2007). 4 The last year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics published these data was U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments, 1998 (Washington, D.C.: 2000). 5 In contrast, for defined contribution plans, the key determinants of the benefit amount are the employee s and employer s contribution rates and the rate of return achieved on plan assets (made up of the amounts contributed to an individual s account over time). Defined contribution plans include 401(k)s. 6 Two states (Alaska and Michigan) and the District of Columbia offer defined contribution plans as their primary plan for general public employees. Two states (Indiana and Oregon) offer primary plans with both defined benefit and defined contribution components; and one state (Nebraska) offers a cash balance defined benefit plan as its primary plan. Page 4

9 14 states picked up the entire cost, and the remainder fell somewhere in between. For virtually all state and local retirees age 65 or older, Medicare provides the primary coverage. Most state and local government employers provide supplemental coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees that covers prescription drugs. 7 Financing of State and Local Retiree Benefits Both government employers and employees generally make contributions to fund state and local pension benefits. States follow statutes specifying contribution amounts or determine the contribution amount each legislative session. However many state and local governments are statutorily required to make yearly contributions based either on actuarial calculations or according to a statutorily specified amount. For plans in which employees are covered by Social Security, the median contribution rate in fiscal year 2006 was 8.5 percent of payroll for employers and 5 percent of pay for employees, in addition to 6.2 percent of payroll from both employers and employees to Social Security. For plans in which employees are not covered by Social Security, the median contribution rate was 11.5 percent of payroll for employers and 8 percent of pay for employees. Actuaries estimate the amount that will be needed to pay future benefits. The benefits that are attributable to past service are called the actuarial accrued liabilities. (In this report, the actuarial accrued liabilities are referred to as liabilities. ) Actuaries calculate liabilities based on an actuarial cost method and a number of assumptions including discount rates and worker and retiree mortality. Actuaries also estimate the actuarial value of assets that fund a plan (in this report, the actuarial value of assets is referred to as assets ). The excess of actuarial accrued liabilities over the actuarial value of assets is referred to as the unfunded actuarial accrued liability or unfunded liability. Under accounting standards, such information is disclosed in financial statements. In contrast, the liability that is recognized on the balance sheet is the cumulative excess of annual benefit costs over contributions to the plan. Certain amounts included in the actuarial accrued liability are not yet recognized as annual benefit costs under accounting standards, as they are amortized over several years. 7 States also typically offer other retiree benefits such as vision, dental, long-term care, and life insurance, but these are generally funded entirely by retirees. For more information on the range and types of benefits provided, see GAO, State and Local Government Retiree Benefits: Current Status of Benefit Structures, Protections, and Fiscal Outlook for Funding Future Costs, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2007). Page 5

10 In a typical defined benefit pension plan, employer and employee contributions are made to a specific fund from which benefits will be paid. The yearly contributions from employers and employees are invested in the stock market, bonds, and other investments. Unlike most pension plans, retiree health benefits have generally been financed on a pay-as-yougo basis. Pay-as-you-go financing means that state and local governments have not set aside funds in a trust reserved for future retiree health costs. Instead, governments pay for each year s retiree health benefits from the current year s budget. Oversight of State and Local Retiree Benefits The federal government has an interest in the funded status of state and local government retiree pensions and health care, even though it has not imposed the same funding and reporting requirements as it has on private sector pension plans. State and local government pension plans are not covered by most of the substantive requirements, or the insurance program operated by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which apply to most private employer benefit plans. Federal law generally does not require state and local governments to prefund or report on the funded status of pension plans or health care benefits. 8 However, in order to receive preferential tax treatment, state and local pensions must comply with requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the retirement income security of all Americans is an ongoing concern of the federal government. All states have legal protections for their pensions. The majority of states have constitutional provisions prescribing how pension trusts are to be funded, protected, managed, or governed. The remaining states have pension protections in their statutes or recognize legal protections under common law. Legal protections usually apply to benefits for existing workers or benefits that have already accrued; thus, state and local governments generally can change the benefits for new hires. 9 In contrast to pensions, retiree health benefits generally do not have the same 8 Similarly, ERISA generally does not include funding and reporting requirements for private companies health benefits. 9 For more information on the protections for state and local retiree benefits, see GAO, State and Local Government Retiree Benefits: Current Status of Benefit Structures, Protections, and Fiscal Outlook for Funding Future Costs, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2007). Page 6

11 constitutional or statutory protections. Instead, to the extent retiree health benefits are legally protected, it is generally because they have been collectively bargained and are subject to current labor contracts. Since the 1980s, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has maintained standards for accounting and financial reporting for state and local governments. GASB operates independently and has no authority to enforce the use of its standards. Still, many state laws require local governments to follow GASB standards, and bond raters do consider whether GASB standards are followed. Also, to receive a clean audit opinion under generally accepted accounting principles, state and local governments are required to follow GASB standards. These standards require reporting financial information on pensions, such as contributions and the ratio of assets to liabilities. In contrast to pensions, the financial status of retiree health care benefits has generally not been reported or even estimated actuarially until recently. However, new GASB standards (Statements 43 and 45) call for employers to quantify and report on the size of retiree health care benefit liabilities. The new health care reporting standards are being phased in over time to give more time to smaller state and local government sponsors to generate estimates. Table 1 shows the respective GASB 43 and 45 effective dates, as well as to what type of entity each statement applies. Table 1. Effective Dates for GASB Statements 43 and 45, Requiring Public Employers to Estimate Health Care Liabilities Total annual revenues as of 1999 Applies to $100,000,000 or more $10,000,000 - $99,999,999 Less than $10,000,000 GASB 43 GASB 45 Plans administered as trusts and multiple-employer plans that are not administered as trusts Applies for periods beginning after All employers that provide retiree health benefits 12/15/05 12/15/06 12/15/06 12/15/07 12/15/07 12/15/08 Source: GASB. Page 7

12 Key Measures of the Funded Status of Retiree Benefits Are Contributions, Funded Ratios, and Unfunded Liabilities of Individual Plans over Time Understanding the financial health of pension plans can be confusing. To help clarify, we found that three measures are key to understanding pension plans funded status. GASB standards require reporting all three of these measures. First, one can look at yearly contributions governments are making to their plans. Actuaries calculate yearly contribution amounts needed to maintain or improve the funded status of plans over time. Comparing this amount to the amount governments actually contribute indicates how well governments are keeping up with yearly funding needs. Two other measures, funded ratios and unfunded liabilities, both suggest the extent to which current assets can cover accrued benefits. These three measures should be viewed together and over time to get a complete picture of the funded status. The funded status measures of different plans cannot be compared to one another easily because different governments use different actuarial funding methods and assumptions to estimate them. Three Measures, Viewed in Relation to One Another over Time, Describe Funded Status Some officials we interviewed expressed confusion about how to understand the funded status of public pension plans. State and local governments report a significant amount of information on funding, required by GASB standards. The media often report various measures of the funded status without explaining the meaning of the terms or without enough context. In addition, governments have been reporting these funded status measures for pensions for years. However, the new accounting rules will also call on governments to report the funded status of retiree health benefits in a similar manner, even though many have not made any contributions to build assets to cover liabilities. We identified three key measures to help explain plans funded status: contributions, funded ratios, and unfunded liabilities. According to experts we interviewed, any single measure at a point in time may give a dimension of a plan s funded status, but it does not give a complete picture. Instead, the measures should be reviewed collectively over time to understand how the funded status is improving or worsening. For example, a strong funded status means that, over time, the amount of assets, along with future scheduled contributions, comes close to matching a plan s liabilities. Comparing governments actual contributions to the annual required contribution (ARC) helps in evaluating the funded status of each plan. Each year, plan actuaries calculate a contribution amount that, if paid in Page 8

13 full, would normally maintain or improve the funded status. 10 This amount is referred to as the ARC, although the use of the word required can be misleading because governments can choose to pay more or less than this amount. 11 If the actuarial assumptions are consistent with the plans future experience, paying the full ARC each year provides reasonable assurance that sufficient money is being set aside to cover currently accruing benefits as well as a portion of any unfunded accrued benefits left over from previous years, instead of leaving those costs for the future. In other words, when a government consistently pays the ARC, the benefits accrued by employees are paid for by the taxpayers who receive the employees services. When the ARC is not paid in full each year, future generations must make up for the costs of benefits that accrued to employees in the past. In addition, the ARC can be compared to the government s yearly budget to understand the financial burden of the benefits, according to officials. This comparison indicates how affordable the plan is to the government in a given year. A high ARC relative to a government s budget may indicate that the costs of benefits are relatively high or that payments have been deferred from previous years. The funded ratio is the ratio of assets to liabilities. Liabilities are the amount governments owe in benefits to current employees who have already accrued benefits they will collect in the future. The funded ratio indicates the extent to which a plan has enough funds set aside to pay accrued benefits. If a plan has a funded ratio of 80 percent, the plan has enough assets to pay for 80 percent of all accrued benefits. A rising funded ratio over time indicates that the government is accumulating the assets needed to make future payments for benefits accrued to date. A low or declining funded ratio over time may raise concerns that the government will not have the assets set aside to pay for benefits. While the funded ratio equals the ratio of assets to liabilities, unfunded liabilities equal the difference between liabilities and assets in dollars. Thus, unfunded liabilities indicate the amount of benefits accrued for which no money is set aside. Assets may fall short of liabilities, for example, when governments do not contribute the full ARC, when they 10 The ARC is made up of the amount of future benefits promised to plan participants that accumulated in the current year, plus a portion of any unfunded liabilities. 11 Contributions from both sponsors and employees, combined with investment earnings on plan assets, must cover both future benefit payments and the administrative expenses associated with the plan. Page 9

14 increase benefits retroactively, or when returns on investments are lower than assumed. Additionally, because all these financial calculations involve estimates of future payments, they are based on a number of assumptions about the future. Unfunded liabilities can grow if actuaries assumptions do not hold true. For example, if beneficiaries live longer than anticipated, they will receive more benefits than predicted, even if the government has been paying the ARC consistently. Unfunded liabilities will eventually require the government employer to increase revenue, reduce benefits or other government spending, or do some combination of these. Revenue increases could include higher taxes, returns on investments, or employee contributions. Nevertheless, we found that unfunded liabilities do not necessarily imply that pension benefits are at risk in the near term. Current funds and new contributions may be sufficient to pay benefits for several years, even when funded ratios are relatively low. As described in figure 1, unfunded liabilities are calculated as intermediate steps in the process of calculating the ARC. After calculating the unfunded liabilities, actuaries usually determine an amount to fund the unfunded liabilities over several years or amortize the cost of the liability. That amortized portion is added to the cost of benefits that employees accrued in the current year to determine the ARC. If a government pays the ARC, then a portion of the unfunded liabilities is paid off each year. When no more unfunded liabilities exist, the funded ratio is 100 percent, and the plan has fully funded all the benefits that its current employees have accrued under the plan s actuarial cost method. However, a fully funded plan still requires yearly contributions to maintain full funding because as employees perform additional service, they accrue additional benefits. Page 10

15 Figure 1. Relationship among the Key Measures of the Funded Status Unfunded liabilities Portion of unfunded liabilities to be paid off this year Cost of benefits accrued this year May be greater or less than the ARC Assets Liabilities ARC Actual contribution Funded ratio Assets divided by liabilities Assets = sum of past contributions from the state and local government plan sponsors, employees, and investment earnings that have not been paid out in benefits or administrative expenses. Liabilities = current cost of all future benefits that have been accrued to date. Source: GAO analysis; images partially by Art Explosion. The funded status measures should be reviewed over time because several factors can affect them. In particular, the money set aside is invested and returns can fluctuate. If a plan s invested assets grow at a rate significantly above or below the rate assumed for funding purposes in a given year, it can change the funded status measures, regardless of the government s contributions. Granting retroactive benefits also increases liabilities and increases unfunded liabilities, even if a government has been contributing the full ARC each year. Funded ratios and unfunded liabilities also can reflect changes in assumptions about member characteristics. For example, as plan members are projected to live in retirement longer, the estimated amount expected to be paid for future benefits rises. Comparing the Funded Status of Different Plans Is Difficult Actuarial Cost Methods Under GASB reporting standards, the funded status of different pension plans cannot be compared easily because governments use different actuarial approaches such as different actuarial cost methods, assumptions, amortization periods, and smoothing mechanisms. Most public pension plans use one of three actuarial cost methods, out of the six GASB approves. Actuarial cost methods differ in several ways. First, each uses a different approach to calculate the normal cost, the Page 11

16 portion of future benefits that the cost method allocates to a specific year, resulting in different funding patterns for each, as described in Table 2. Table 2: Normal Cost Calculations for Three Most Commonly Used Actuarial Cost Methods Actuarial cost Method Projected unit credit Description Projected benefits of each employee covered by the plan are allocated by a consistent formula to valuation years. Entry age normal The current value of future benefits of each employee is allocated on a level basis over the earnings or service of the employee between entry age and assumed exit age. Aggregate The excess of the value of future benefits of all employees over the current value of assets is allocated on a level basis over the earnings or service of the group between the valuation date and assumed exit. This allocation is performed for the group as a whole, not as a sum of individual allocations. How the method calculates the normal cost for the current year Equal to the current value of the future benefit that each employee earned this year, using the employee s projected salary at retirement as a base. Equal to the level percentage of payroll that would exactly fund each employee s prospective benefits if contributed from the member s date of eligibility until retirement. The percentage of payroll equal to the current value of future benefits minus assets, divided by the current value of future salaries. The Aggregate Cost Method Some news reports have expressed uncertainty about the use of the aggregate actuarial cost method, but experts indicated that the aggregate method is as sound as the other methods. Experts explained that under the aggregate method, unfunded liabilities are allocated as future normal costs instead of being amortized and added to the normal cost. As a result, no unfunded liabilities are reported, and the funded ratio is often reported as 100 percent and year-to-year payments may be more volatile. Relatively few plans actually employ the aggregate method. For those plans, GASB recently began to require governments to report the funded ratio using the entry age normal method. Sources: Actuarial Standards Board, Government Accountants Journal, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, American Academy of Actuaries. Actuarial cost methods are used to allocate the current value of future benefits into amounts attributable to the past, to the current year, and to future years, as shown in figure 2. The cost of future benefits that are attributable to past years under the actuarial cost method is called the actuarial accrued liability (AAL), while the cost of benefits accrued under the cost method in the current year is known as the normal cost. Figure 2: Division of the Current Value of Future Benefits among Time Periods Actuarial accrued liability (AAL) Current value of future benefits Normal cost Future normal costs Benefits accrued in past years Benefits accrued in the current year Benefits that will accrue in future years Source: Paul Angelo, Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, and GAO. Page 12

17 Some Call for Assuming Risk-Free Investment Returns Some in the pension community have been advocating an alternative approach to measuring the funded status of public plans. Proponents of this approach point to certain implications of the field of financial economics that suggest that using the expected rate of return to project future fund earnings does not adequately take into account the risk inherent in some investments. They believe it is preferable, for disclosure purposes, that a plan s assets and liabilities be marked to market. In particular, plan liabilities should be measured, independent of the actuarial cost method used for funding, as the cost of closing out the plan s accrued benefit obligations based on service to date. This implies using the cost of annuities or discounting the expected cash flows using a risk-free rate of return and would likely result in much less favorable funded status estimates. Further, they believe that using a smoothed value of assets rather than the market value of assets obscures the plan s risk profile and may have operational consequences as well. Most governments do not use risk-free return assumptions to calculate funded status. Most public plan actuaries believe that using this approach is inappropriate because their plans do invest in diversified portfolios with higher rates of returns than risk-free rates. Those higher returns are reasonable to expect, they feel, based on past experience and will decrease the contributions that would be required if assumed returns were lower. Their current practice, they argue, produces estimates of contributions that best reflect what will actually be required on average over the long term. Using a riskfree return assumption would result in higher current contribution rates, requiring current taxpayers to pay more for the cost of future benefits. The funded status of plans using different cost methods differs because each has a different approach to dividing up the value of future benefits. Different cost methods are designed for plans to accrue liabilities at different rates, so the normal cost and the AAL vary according to the cost method. For example, under some cost methods, governments accrue more liabilities in the early part of employees career rather than later. As a result, two identical plans, using identical actuarial assumptions but different cost methods, would report a different funded status. 12 Assumptions In addition to the cost methods, differences in assumptions used to calculate the funded status can result in significant differences among plans that make comparisons difficult. One key assumption is the rate at which governments assume their invested assets will grow. If governments assume a high growth rate, their calculations will indicate that they do not have to pay as much today, because the assets set aside will grow more rapidly. In 2006, 70 percent of state and local government pension plans assumed a return of 8.0 to 8.5 percent, while 30 percent assumed a lower rate of return (7 percent at the lowest). If a plan s assets fail to grow at the assumed rate of return, then the shortfall becomes part of the unfunded liabilities. However, in other years, assets may earn more than the assumed rate of return, reducing unfunded liabilities. Amortization Periods for Unfunded Liabilities In addition to actuarial cost methods and assumptions, differences in amortization periods make it difficult to compare the funded status of different plans. Governments amortize unfunded liabilities to reduce the volatility of contributions from year to year. Governments can choose shorter or longer periods over which to amortize unfunded liabilities. GASB standards allow governments to amortize unfunded liabilities over a 12 Even if a single method were required for financial reporting purposes, government sponsors could still use a different method for funding purposes, since financial reporting standards do not dictate the fiscal policies used to fund the plans. Page 13

18 period of up to 30 years. 13 State and local governments can amortize their benefits because there is little chance that they will cease to exist. Smoothing Periods Finally, actuaries for many plans calculate the value of current assets based on an average value of past years. As a result, if the value of assets fluctuates significantly from year to year, the smoothed value of assets changes less dramatically. GASB does not limit the number of years governments may use to smooth the value of assets, but in 2006, most governments averaged the value of current assets with those of the last zero to 5 years. Comparing the funded status of plans that use different smoothing periods can be confusing because the value of the different plans assets reflects a different number of years. Given fluctuations in the stock market from year to year, the reported value of assets for plans that use different numbers of years for smoothing calculations could reflect significantly different market returns. Most Public Pensions Have Assets to Pay Benefits over Several Decades, Though Contributions Vary, While Unfunded Liabilities for Retiree Health Are Significant More than half of public pension plans reported that they have put enough assets aside in advance to pay for benefits over the next several decades, while governments providing retiree health benefits generally have significant unfunded liabilities. The percentage of pension plans with funded ratios below 80 percent, a level viewed by many experts as sound, has increased in recent years, and a few plans are persistently underfunded. Although members of these plans may not be at risk of losing benefits in the near term, the unfunded liabilities will have to be made up in the future. In addition, a number of governments reported not contributing enough to reduce unfunded liabilities, which can shift costs to future generations. For state and local governments retiree health benefits, studies have estimated unfunded liabilities nationwide to be between $600 million and $1.6 trillion, although the amounts for individual governments vary widely. Even though annual costs for retiree health benefits are currently low compared to pensions, continuing to pay for current benefits with current revenues can put stress on government budgets because health care costs are increasing rapidly. 13 Under GASB standards, sponsors can also re-amortize unfunded liabilities each year, known as open amortization. Under such an approach, for example, each year sponsors can pay the annual cost for a 30-year amortization of that year s unfunded liabilities; the following year, the sponsor can re-amortize the remaining unfunded liabilities over an additional 30 years, and so on. Page 14

19 Most Public Pension Plans Have Enough Funds to Pay for Benefits over the Long- Term Most public pension plans report having sufficient assets to pay for retiree benefits over the next several decades. Many experts and officials to whom we spoke consider a funded ratio of 80 percent to be sufficient for public plans for a couple of reasons. 14 First, it is unlikely that public entities will go bankrupt as can happen with private sector employers, and state and local governments can spread the costs of unfunded liabilities over up to 30 years under current GASB standards. In addition, several commented that it can be politically unwise for a plan to be overfunded; that is, to have a funded ratio over 100 percent. The contributions made to funds with excess assets can become a target for lawmakers with other priorities or for those wishing to increase retiree benefits. More than half of state and local governments plans reviewed by the Public Fund Survey (PFS) had a funded ratio of 80 percent or better in fiscal year 2006, but the percentage of plans with a funded ratio of 80 percent or better has decreased since 2000, as shown in figure Our analysis of the PFS data on 65 self-reported state and local government pension plans showed that 38 (58 percent) had a funded ratio of 80 percent or more, while 27 had a funded ratio of less than 80 percent. In the early 2000s, according to one study, the funded ratio of 114 state and local government pension plans together reached about 100 percent; it has since declined. 16 In fiscal year 2006, the aggregate funded ratio was about 86 percent. Some officials attribute the decline in funded ratios since the late 1990s to the decline of the stock market, which reduced the value of assets. This sharp decline would likely affect funded ratios for several 14 The Pension Protection Act of 2006 provided that large private sector pension plans will be considered at risk of defaulting on their liabilities if they have less than 80 percent funded ratios under standard actuarial assumptions and less than 70 percent funded ratios under certain additional worst-case actuarial assumptions. When private sector plans default on their liabilities, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation becomes liable for benefits. These funding standards will be phased in, becoming fully effective in 2011, and at-risk plans are required to use stricter actuarial assumptions that will result in them having to make larger plan contributions. Pub. L. No , sec. 112(a), 430(i), 120 Stat. 780, In this section, we refer to our analysis of the Public Fund Survey (PFS) and the PENDAT database. The PFS is sponsored by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the National Council on Teacher Retirement. These sources contain self-reported data on state and local government pension plans in years 1994, 1996, and 2000 to Each year, between 62 and 72 plans were represented in our dataset. In 2005, the 70 plans represented 58 percent of total assets invested in public pension plans nationwide in 2005, and 72 percent of total members. 16 K. Brainard, Public Fund Survey Summary of Findings for FY 2006, National Association of State Retirement Administrators, (Georgetown, Tex.: October 2007). Page 15

20 years because most plans use smoothing techniques to average out the value of assets over several years. Our analysis of several factors affecting the funded ratio showed that changes in investment returns had the most significant impact on the funded ratio between 1988 and 2005, followed by changes in liabilities. 17 Figure 3: Percentage of State and Local Government Pension Plans with Funded Ratios above or below 80 Percent, by Fiscal Year Percentage of plans Fiscal year Funded ratio 80 percent or more Funded ratio less than 80 percent Source: GAO analysis of PFS, PENDAT data. Although most plans report being soundly funded in 2006, a few have been persistently underfunded, and some plans have seen funded ratio declines 17 These findings may be unique to the time period examined ( ). In other periods, other factors, such as changes to benefits, may account for more of the change in the funded ratio than the rates of return on the investment portfolio. Page 16

State and Local Government Retiree Benefits Retiree Health Care Benefits: Structures, Protections, and Funded Status Barbara Bovbjerg Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security U.S. Government

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters March 2012 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION PLANS Economic Downturn Spurs Efforts to Address Costs and Sustainability

Background Connecticut State Employee Collective Bargaining and Retirement Benefits State employees through their bargaining units have had the authority under state law to collectively bargain on wages,

Understanding Actuarial Information By Richard H. Harris Annual required contributions for state and local government pension plans are based on plan data, plan provisions, and actuarial assumptions of

PENSION COMMUNICATION RESOURCES Contents Two Sets of Pension Measures Separating Accounting and Funding for Pensions Has the ARC Disappeared? Two Sets of Numbers Financial Statement Impact of New Standards

1012 Part 3 E M Additional Activities and Common Disclosures of a Business POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS Explain the differences in accounting for pensions and postretirement benefits other

Governmental Accounting Standards Board Other Postemployment Benefits: A Plain-Language Summary of GASB Statements No. 43 and No. 45 Please note: This document, prepared by the GASB staff, has not been

INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM Understanding Indiana s Largest Pension System March 27, 2015 Funds Overview The Indiana Public Retirement System (INPRS) includes the two largest public retirement plans

PRESENT LAW AND BACKGROUND RELATING TO MULTIEMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS AND RELATED PROVISIONS OF H.R. 2830, THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 Scheduled for a Public Hearing Before the SUBCOMMITTEE

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT Friday, May 18, 2007 United States Government Accountability Office Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal

FIREMEN S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012 May 16, 2013 Retirement Board of the Firemen s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago 20 South

West Virginia Department of Public Safety Death, Disability and Retirement Fund (Plan A) Actuarial Valuation As of July 1, 2013 Prepared by: for the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board January

Things New Yorkers Should Know About Public Retirement Benefits in New York State October 2010 INTRODUCTION Citizens Budget Commission One Penn Plaza, Suite 640 New York, NY 10119 411 State Street Albany,

South Dakota Retirement System Actuarial Valuation As of June 30, 2014 2014 Xerox Corporation and Buck Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. Xerox and Xerox and Design are trademarks of Xerox Corporation

Report on the Actuarial Valuation of the Health Insurance Credit Program Prepared as of June 30, 2013 Cavanaugh Macdonald C O N S U L T I N G, L L C The experience and dedication you deserve December 19,

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters July 2008 PBGC ASSETS Implementation of New Investment Policy Will Need Stronger Board Oversight GAO-08-667 July 2008

Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Pensions For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, information about the fiduciary net position of the pension plans and additions to/deductions

Retirement Security June 2006 Public Policy Issue Statement Background Retirement plans represent an important aspect of the total compensation package used by employers to recruit and retain employees.

ACCOUNTING FOR PENSION PLANS L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E Understand the required disclosures for pension plans and analyze changes in the assets and liabilities of a pension plan during a period.

VOLUME 1 ISSUE 3 Comparative Analysis of the Nevada Public Employees Page 1 Hobbs, Ong & Associates and Applied Analysis were retained by the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce to review and analyze various

NOVEMBER 2012 ARIZONA Arizona s Pension Challenges: The Need for an Affordable, Secure, and Sustainable Retirement Plan The funding level of Arizona s public employee retirement systems has declined every

SUPPLEMENT TO ANNUAL FUNDING NOTICE OF MAYO PENSION PLAN FOR PLAN YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2015 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015 ( Plan Year ) This is a temporary supplement to your annual funding notice.

MAP-21 SUPPLEMENT TO ANNUAL FUNDING NOTICE OF THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA PENSION PLAN FOR PLAN YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2013 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2013 ( Plan Year ) This is a temporary

NORTH STAR SCHOOL GASB 68 Notes to the Financial Statements For the Year Ended June 30, 2015 Pension Amounts Total for Employer Employer s proportion of TRS and PERS pension amounts combined 74 The employer

FUNDING NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS N ew Jersey has six major Stateadministered retirement systems. Along with the required contributions of the public employees, these systems are funded

County of Santa Barbara Office of the Auditor-Controller County Retirement Costs: White Paper by Robert W. Geis, CPA (Through June, 30, 2006) The County Retirement plan and underlying systems can be difficult

GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters October 2003 STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS As Federal Costs of Loan Consolidation Rise, Other Options Should Be Examined GAO-04-101

Report of the Actuary on the Annual Valuation of the Retirement System for Employees of the City of Cincinnati Pension Report Prepared as of December 31, 2011 and Approved by the Board of Trustees on May

AN EXPLANATORY GLOSSARY OF POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION WITHIN THE ACADEMIC SENATE * April 16, 2010 This paper, in the form of an explanatory glossary, attempts to address

POLICY BRIEF Visit us at: www.tiaa-crefinstitute.org. September 2004 The 2004 Report of the Social Security Trustees: Social Security Shortfalls, Social Security Reform and Higher Education The 2004 Social

Fundamentals of Current Pension Funding and Accounting For Private Sector Pension Plans An Analysis by the Pension Committee of the American Academy of Actuaries July 2004 The American Academy of Actuaries

ANNUAL FUNDING NOTICE For THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PENSION PLAN FOR STAFF EMPLOYEES Introduction This notice includes important information about the funding status of your single employer pension plan

Annual Funding Notice For TOTAL Finance USA, Inc. Cash Balance Pension Plan Introduction This notice includes important information about the funding status of your pension plan ( the Plan ) and general

Cash Balance Plan Overview A Cash Balance Plan is a type of qualified retirement plan that is a hybrid between a traditional Defined Contribution Plan and a traditional Defined Benefit Plan. Like traditional

SUMMARY February 2013 THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT The plans: Connecticut has two large state-administered pension systems, four smaller state-administered systems, and many locally-administered systems. The

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Inspector General PWBA Needs to Improve Oversight of Cash Balance Plan Lump Sum Distributions U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General Report No. 09-02-001-12-121

IMPLEMENTING GASB STATEMENT NO. 68 ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR PENSIONS A CCMA WHITE PAPER FOR CALIFORNIA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Issued April 2015 PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor March 2011 PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE Data on Application and Coverage Denials

Background The Long-Term Financial Liabilities Russell Fehr City Treasurer January 28, 2014 3 of 16 Along with the severe short-term fiscal challenges brought on by the deep and prolonged recession, the

95 At LACERA we're committed to customer service. It drives everything we do, from taking members' calls, responding to correspondence, leading workshops, and counseling individuals in one-on-one sessions

This publication has been developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. It is available on the Internet at: www.dol.gov/ebsa For a complete list of EBSA publications,

FINAL REPORT ON CONNECTICUT S STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM Jean-Pierre Aubry and Alicia H. Munnell November 2015 Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Hovey

ILLINOIS PENSION PRIMER A Plain-English Guide to Public Employee Pensions in the State of Illinois April 22, 2015 The Civic Federation would like to express its gratitude to the Chicago Community Trust,

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate March 2008 HEALTH INSURANCE Most College Students Are Covered through Employer-Sponsored

Focus Fund 73030,, was created to capture long term investment returns and make progress towards reducing the unfunded actuarial accrued liability under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement